A  MONKOE  DOCTKINE  DIVIDED: 
SUGGESTIONS  FOE  A  PKESIDENTIAL 

MESSAGE 


BY 

CHARLES  E.  CHAPMAN 


REPRINTED  FROM  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY 
VOL.  XXXVII,  No.  i,  MARCH,  1922 


NEW  YORK 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE 

ACADEMY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

1022 


A  MONROE  DOCTRINE  DIVIDED: 
SUGGESTIONS  FOR  A  PRESIDENTIAL 

MESSAGE 


BY    ^fr\ 
CHARLES  E.  CHAPMAN 


REPRINTED  FROM  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY 
VOL.  XXXVII,  No.  i,  MARCH,  1922 


NEW  YORK 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE 

ACADEMY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

1922 


F/f/f 


A  MONROE  DOCTRINE  DIVIDED:   SUGGESTION 
FOR  A  PRESIDENTIAL  MESSAGE  ' 

IN  August,  1920,  the  writer  attended  a  "  velada  "  in  Santiago, 
Chile,  in  honor  of  a  Chilean  student  who  was  being  sent 
to  Oxford.  The  affair  was  the  event  of  the  day  in  that 
city,  and  the  great  Municipal  Theatre  was  filled  almost  to  the 
point  of  overflowing.  On  the  stage,  among  the  speakers,  were 
some  of  the  most  distinguished  men  in  Chile,  as  well  as  the 
British  minister  and  other  diplomatic  representatives.  Natur- 
ally, the  keynote  of  the  speeches  was  "  the  traditional  friend- 
ship of  England  and  Chile".  More  than  one  speaker  took 
occasion  to  point  out  that  never  in  their  national  history  had  the 
Chileans  had  any  reason  to  fear  a  British  policy  of  "  imper- 
ialism ". 

The  above  is  merely  a  single  instance  of  what  one  hears 
many  times,  not  only  in  Chile  but  also  in  other  parts  of  His- 
panic America.  "  Of  course  the  Hispanic  American  republics 
have  had  no  occasion  to  be  afraid  of  England  or  any  other 
European  power",  we  may  tell  ourselves,  "  because  they  have 
.been  protected  by  the  Monroe  Doctrine". 

The  statement  will  bear  investigation.  If  the  Hispanic 
American  republics  have  been  free  from  aggressions,  their 
predecessors,  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  empires,  were  not. 
Take,  for  example,  the  case  of  England.  The  history  of  Eng- 
lish colonization  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  is  made  up  largely 
of  encroachments  on  the  Spanish  domain.  From  Virginia  to 
Florida  there  were  once  Spanish  establishments  which  were 
supplanted  by  the  English.  Jamaica,  Trinidad,  and  the  regions 
now  called  British  Guiana  and  British  Honduras  were  filched 
from  Spain.  England  pressed  back  the  Spanish  claims  along 

1  In  accordance  with  their  general  policy,  the  editors  disclaim  all  responsibility  for 
the  proposals  put  forth  by   contributors.     The    author  of  the  present  article,  Dr 
Chapman,  is  Associate  Professor  of  Hispanic  American  History  in  the  University  of 
California,  and  was  recently  United  States  Exchange  Professor  to  Chile.— ED. 

75 


76  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY      [VOL.  XXXVII 

the  Pacific  coast.  If  more  was  not  taken  it  was  due,  not  to  a 
lack  of  effort,  but  to  lack  of  success.  Twice  in  the  opening 
years  of  the  nineteenth  century  England  sent  trained  armies  to 
the  Rio  de  la  Plata  to  conquer  the  great  region  now  embraced 
by  Argentina  and  Uruguay,  but  her  troops  were  defeated. 
There  followed  a  few  years  of  abstention,  when  England  was 
an  ally  of  Spain  in  Europe,  and  then  in  1823  there  came  the 
enunciation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  not  an  English-sponsored 
"  Canning  Doctrine  "  as  has  so  often  erroneously  been  stated, 
but  a  Doctrine  which  Canning  himself  received  with  no  little 
displeasure  when  he  saw  the  terms  in  which  it  was  couched. 

European  expansion  in  the  Americas  was  blocked,  unless  the 
overseas  governments  were  willing  to  risk  a  conflict  with  the 
United  States — but  it  was  not  blocked  elsewhere.  Let  anybody 
compare  a  map  of  the  world  in  1823  with  a  world  map  of  to- 
day!  In  i&23  Western  European  possessions  in  Africa  were 
limited  to  a  few  scant  strips  of  coast  and  the  settlements  at  the 
Cape.  Today  Africa  is  a  splash  of  colors  representing  the 
holdings  of  England,  France  and  Italy,  with  minor  tidbits  to 
lesser  powers.  Liberia  alone  stands  free.  Look  at  Asia — and 
the  same  thing  will  be  observed  to  have  taken  place.  Where, 
for  example,  are  Afghanistan  and  Beluchistan,  which  but  a  few 
years  ago  used  to  grace  our  maps  as  independent  entities?  But 
the  detail  of  European  conquest  in  Asia  during  the  past  hun- 
dred years  is  long  and  tedious.  Look  also  at  Oceanica  and  the 
South  Pacific.  There  too  the  wave  of  European  imperialism 
flowed  in.  Even  in  Europe  itself  there  have  been  "  readjust- 
ments "  of  frontiers  and  changes  of  flag,  especially  in  the  eastern 
Mediterranean.  In  other  words,  everywhere  in  the  world,  ex- 
cept in  the  Americas,  the  years  since  1823  have  been  one  of  the 
greatest  epochs  of  European  conquest  that  history  records. 

The  writer  sets  this  forth  in  no  sense  of  accusation.  He 
recognizes,  for  example,  that  there  have  been  British  states- 
men who  could  say  "  Perish  India!",  bewailing  the  fact  of  the 
British  Empire.  He  recently  talked  with  an  Englishman  wha 
in  all  sincerity  "  lamented  the  necessity  "  of  England's  taking 
possession  of  Mesopotamia,  though  he  was  convinced  that  it 
was  "England's  duty  to  mankind  "  to  do  so.  But  India  did  not 


No.  i]  A  MONROE  DOCTRINE  DIVIDED  ** 

perish ;  it  grew.  And  the  valuable  oil  fields  of  Mesopotamia 
are  commonly  understood  to  have  been  appropriated  to  the 
almost  exclusive  use  of  England.  Nothing  of  that  sort  has 
happened  in  the  Americas.  Is  it  reasonable  to  deny  that  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  has  been  largely  responsible? 

The  discussion  may  be  brought  back  to  the  point  of  start- 
ing. Due  to  the  restraint  imposed  upon  them  by  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  the  European  powers  have  obtained  a  reputation  in 
Hispanic  America  that  they  do  not  deserve.  And  so  too  has 
the  United  States,  but  in  this  case  it  is  a  horse  of  another  color. 
Too  frequently  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  looked  upon  as  an  in- 
strument for  conquests  by  the  United  States,  under  the  pre- 
tense of  protecting  the  Hispanic  American  republics  from  their 
European  friends,  "  who  have  never  done  them  any  harm ". 
All  too  often  our  European  trade  rivals  do  what  they  can  to 
foster  this  ungenerous  view. 

The  evil  of  this  situation  is  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is 
proving  a  bonanza  for  European  trade  and  a  boomerang  for 
ours.  A  European  who  was  not  an  imperialist  might  well  drink 
long  life  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  But  has  anybody  ever  read 
a  word  of  commendation  for  it  among  English,  French,  or 
German  writings?  Certainly  not  often,  if  at  all.  Europeans 
do  not  like  it,  though  it  helps  them  so  long  as  they  confine 
their  wishes  to  trade  and  investment. 

Come  now  to  the  next  question.  Is  there  any  reason  why 
we  should  assist  European  business,  to  the  detriment  of  our 
own?  In  other  words,  is  the  Monroe  Doctrine  worth  retain- 
ing in  whole  or  in  part,  or  should  it  be  given  up  ? 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  sprang  into  being  in  response  to  two 
motive  principles :  a  feeling  of  American  intercontinental  soli- 
darity ;  and  a  concern  for  our  own  national  defense.  Whatever 
changes  the  Doctrine  may  have  undergone  in  its  application, 
these  ideals  continued  to  be,  and  still  are,  the  foundation  stones. 
The  first  of  them,  however,  is  gradually  being  taken  over  by 
Pan-Americanism,  though  the  success  of  that  institution  is  not 
yet  as  great  as  could  be  desired.  The  second  is  becoming  less 
and  less  vital  as  the  years  wear  on.  At  the  present  moment 
nothing  less  than  a  combination  of  European  and  Asiatic  ene- 


78  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY       [VOL.  XXXVII 

mies  could  hope  to  overthrow  us  in  war.  Admitting  that  the 
Caribbean  area  and  the  Pacific  lands  nearest  the  Canal  would 
be  a  menace  in  the  hands  of  a  great  power,  it  does  not  seem 
probable  that  there  could  be  any  danger  to  us  from  any  enemy 
in  southern  South  America.  Furthermore,  at  least  four  of 
those  countries  are  so  well  established  and  so  punctiliously  ob- 
servant of  their  international  obligations  that  they  would  offer 
slight  excuse  for  anything  but  the  most  brutally  wanton  con- 
quest, and  it  is  not  likely  that  our  European  brethren  will  be 
graceless  enough  for  that.  Come  then  to  the  first  sentences  in 
a  new  statement  about  the  Monroe  Doctrine  which  the  writer 
could  wish  some  Presidential  Message  might  adopt: 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  was  enunciated  and  has  been  sustained  by 
this  country  out  of  a  feeling  of  American  intercontinental  solidarity 
and  as  the  cornerstone  of  our  national  defense.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  in  its  present  form  it  is  not  popular  with  large  sections  of  the 
public  in  each  of  the  Hispanic  American  republics  and  that  its  con- 
tinuance is  therefore  detrimental  to  American  business,  it  behooves  us 
to  make  fitting  modifications  either  in  its  application  or  in  its  terms. 
For  the  purposes  of  national  defense  we  are  indeed  interested  in  the 
lands  which  are  nearest  to  us  and  to  the  Panama  Canal,  but  as  regards 
happenings  in  the  more  southerly  republics  of  South  America  we  need 
from  that  standpoint  have  small  concern.  The  United  States  might 
very  well,  therefore,  abandon  the  Monroe  Doctrine  with  respect  to  the 
last-named  countries,  while  retaining  it  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  Euro- 
pean or  Asiatic  aggressions  in  the  rest. 

The  republics  which  might  thus  be  left  out  of  the  fold  would 
be,  probably,  Peru,  Chile,  Bolivia,  Paraguay,  Argentina,  Uru- 
guay and  Brazil.  Ecuador  (because  of  its  strategic  position 
with  respect  to  the  Canal)  would  be  retained  with  Mexico, 
Central  America,  northern  South  America,  and  the  West  In- 
dian islands,  within  the  purview  of  the  Doctrine. 

Here,  if  merely  our  own  narrowly  national  interests  were  to 
be  considered,  the  new  presidential  message  might  stop,  though 
it  would  then  be  necessary  to  omit  the  first  sentence  given 
above,  or  else  leave  the  "  intercontinental  solidarity  "  swinging 
uncomfortably  in  the  air.  Few  of  us,  however,  would  be  will- 


No.  i]  A  MONROE  DOCTRINE  DIVIDED  79 

ing  so  lightly  to  abandon  a  national  ideal  which  most  of  us  be- 
lieve has  been,  on  the  whole,  beneficent.  Furthermore,  it 
seems  almost  like  treachery  to  the  occasional  friend  we  have 
had  in  the  southern  republics  who  has  dared  to  defend  us  and 
even  to  proclaim  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  What,  for  example, 
would  we  say  to  President  Brum  of  Uruguay  who  recently  made 
a  remarkable  statement  in  favor  of  the  Doctrine?  On  June  18, 
1917,  the  President  of  Uruguay  (influenced  by  Brum  who  was 
not  then  President)  issued  a  decree  to  the  effect  that  an  offense 
against  one  American  nation  should  be  considered  an  offense 
against  all  and  that  Uruguay  would  not  treat  as  a  belligerent 
any  sister  American  state  so  attacked.  Thus  did  Uruguay  put 
herself  unreservedly  on  the  side  of  the  United  States  during  the 
war.  Early  in  1920  Senor  Brum,  now  President,  defined  his 
position  in  course  of  an  address  on  international  law.  He  as- 
serted that  all  American  countries,  including  the  United  States, 
should  hold  it  as  an  attack  upon  each  when  some  non- Ameri- 
can country  should  give  offense  to  any  one  of  them,  and  should 
take  joint  action  against  such  aggression.  In  one  of  the  strong- 
est arguments  ever  made,  he  pointed  out  clearly  how  the 
United  States  had  saved  Hispanic  America,  not  only  recently 
against  Germany,  but  also  in  the  past.  He  then  went  on  to 
urge  the  embodiment  of  a  somewhat  expanded  and  clarified 
Monroe  Doctrine  in  the  constitution  of  a  League  of  American 
Nations,  which  might  exist  without  prejudice  to  a  world  League. 
In  this  document  the  bugaboo  of  United  States'  aggressions  was 
to  be  definitely  exorcised.  He  also  spoke  of  American  soli- 
darity in  any  League  of  Nations  of  the  world.  Let  us  then 
proceed  with  the  Presidential  Message : 

It  is  neither  the  wish  nor  the  intention  of  this  government  to  abandon 
the  ideal  of  intercontinental  solidarity  with  respect  to  the  southern  re- 
publics of  South  America.  Indeed,  the  United  States  may  very  well 
offer  to  embody  the  principles  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  treaties  with 
those  countries,  along  the  lines  recently  suggested  by  President  Brum 
of  Uruguay. 

Perhaps  this  is  the  point  where  wise  statesmanship  should 
stop.  Unforeseen  circumstances  may  compel  us,  like  the  Eng- 


So  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY       [VOL.  XXXVII 

lishman  in  Mesopotamia,  to  be  under  the  "  lamentable  neces- 
sity "  of  doing  our  "  duty  to  mankind  "  in  some  of  the  nearer 
republics  of  Hispanic  America.  The  question  is  not  easy  to 
resolve.  Some  will  say  that  self-determination  is  the  only 
moral  rule  to  apply.  Others  point  out  that  an  anarchic  self- 
determination  in  fact  injures  others,  just  as  a  man  who  sets  his 
own  house  on  fire  endangers  the  neighborhood.  They  also 
argue  that  the  world  has  now  become  so  small  that  none  of  its 
resources  can  afford  to  be  wasted.  There  may  indeed  be  two 
opinions  on  the  moral  code  of  imperialism,  but  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  national  advantages  in  a  career  of  conquest 
are  altogether  outweighed  by  the  disadvantages.  During  more 
than  a  century  of  our  national  life  we  scarcely  so  much  as  thought 
in  terms  of  imperialism,  except  by  way  of  an  offshoot  from  our 
own  domestic  politics.  In  1898  we  made  our  bow  in  world 
affairs,  and  then  for  a  time  many  of  us  were  temporarily  at- 
tracted by  the  glamor  of  conquest.  But,  as  history  goes,  the 
dream  lasted  but  a  moment.  The  American  people  rushed 
into  the  Great  War  without  a  thought  of  advantage  to  them- 
selves, and  came  out  with  unsullied  hands,  where  they  might 
have  taken  almost  anything  they  wished.  Nay  more,  we  all 
know  that  there  was  for  a  time  a  distinct  feeling  of  dissatisfac- 
tion with  our  allies,  precisely  on  the  ground  that  each  and  every 
•one  had  yielded  to  the  temptation  of  imperialism.  Would  it 
not  then  be  worth  while  to  consider  a  further  addition  to  our 
Presidential  Message? 

With  respect  to  the  other  countries  still  included  as  within  the  sphere 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  it  is  the  desire  of  the  United  States  that  they 
alone  shall  determine  their  fate  as  sovereign  peoples.  The  United 
States  should  welcome  them  too  to  such  a  League  pf  American  Nations 
as  President  Brum  suggests.  Thus  the  fear  of  certain  Spanish  Ameri- 
cans that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  in  reality  a  weapon  against  themselves 
should  then  be  dissipated.  The  time  has  not  come,  however,  when  the 
interests  of  our  national  defense  could  be  turned  over  to  a  league  which 
has  yet  to  be  put  on  trial.  It  will  therefore  be  necessary  for  this  gov- 
ernment to  retain  its  traditional  principles  with  respect  to  the  area 
mentioned,  in  its  own  defense  against  the  non- American  powers. 


No.  i]  A  MONROE  DOCTRINE  DIVIDED  gl 

What  would  be  the  effect?  In  southern  South  America  the 
first  reaction  would  be  one  of  surprise;  among  certain  youthful 
internationalists  and  literary  dilettantes  there  would  be  some- 
thing akin  to  regret  at  seeing  their  silly  predictions  of  an  agres- 
sive  American  use  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  thus  come  to  naught. 
There  would  be  no  immediate  rush  to  make  the  offered  treaty, 
but,  sooner  or  later,  common  sense  would  prevail,  and  southern 
South  America  would  come  into  the  fold,  led  perhaps  by  Uru- 
guay. In  the  countries  nearer  to  us,  there  certainly  would  be 
a  temporary  outcry  if  the  last  paragraph  in  the  proposed  mes- 
sage were  not  included — no  worse,  however,  than  is  already 
chronic.  With  that  paragraph  included,  some  of  them  would 
still  cry  out,  but  their  governments  would  enter  the  League 
sooner  perhaps  than  some  of  those  farther  south,  if  only  to 
avoid  losing  certain  advantages  with  respect  to  one  another. 
The  League  in  origin  would  not  be  a  strong,  whole-hearted 
organization,  but  in  course  of  time  it  might  become  so.  Then 
and  then  only  could  we  abandon  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  en- 
tirety. 

In  conclusion,  then,  let  us  set  forth  the  "  Message  "as  a 
whole. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  was  enunciated  and  has  been  sustained  by 
this  country  out  of  a  feeling  of  American  intercontinental  solidarity  and 
as  the  cornerstone  of  our  national  defense.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  in 
its  present  form  it  is  not  popular  with  large  sections  of  the  public  in 
each  of  the  Hispanic  American  republics  and  that  its  continuance  is 
therefore  detrimental  to  American  business,  it  behooves  us  to  make 
fitting  modifications  either  in  its  application  or  in  its  terms.  For  the 
purposes  of  national  defense  we  are  indeed  interested  in  the  lands 
which  are  nearest  to  us  and  to  the  Panama  Canal,  but  as  regards  hap- 
penings in  the  more  southerly  republics  of  South  America  we  need 
from  that  standpoint  have  small  concern.  The  United  States  might 
very  well,  therefore ,  abandon  the  Monroe  Doctrine  with  respect  to  the 
last-named  countries,  while  retaining  it  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  Euro- 
pean or  Asiatic  aggressions  in  the  rest. 

It  is  neither  the  wish  nor  the  intention  of  this  government  to  aban- 
don the  ideal  of  intercontinental  solidarity  with  respect  to  the  southern 
republics  of  South  America.  Indeed,  the  United  States  may  very  well 


82  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY 

offer  to  embody  the  principles  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  treaties  with 
those  countries,  along  the  lines  recently  suggested  by  President  Brum 
of  Uruguay. 

With  respect  to  the  other  countries  still  included  as  within  the  sphere 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  it  is  the  desire  of  the  United  States  that  they 
alone  shall  determine  their  fate  as  sovereign  peoples.  The  United 
States  should  welcome  them  too  to  such  a  League  of  American  Nations 
as  President  Brum  suggests.  Thus  the  fear  of  certain  Spanish  Ameri- 
cans that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  in"  reality  a  weapon  against  them- 
selves should  then  be  dissipated.  The  time  has  not  come,  however, 
when  the  interests  of  our  national  defense  could  be  turned  over  to  a 
league  which  has  yet  to  be  put  on  trial.  It  will  therefore  be  necessary 
for  this  government  to  retain  its  traditional  principles  with  respect  to 
the  area  mentioned,  in  its  own  defense  against  the  non- American 
powers. 

CHARLES  E.  CHAPMAN. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


THE  ACADEMY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 

The  Academy  of  Political  Science  is  affiliated  with  Columbij 
University  and  is  composed  of  men  and  women  interested  in  polit- 
ical, economic  and  social  questions.  The  annual  dues  are  fiv< 
dollars.  Members  receive  the  Political  Science  Quarterly  and  th< 
Proceedings  of  the  Academy  and  are  entitled  to  free  admission  t( 
all  meetings,  lectures  and  receptions  under  the  auspices  of  th< 
Academy.  Subscribers  to  the  Quarterly  are  enrolled  as  subscril 
ing  members  of  the  Academy. 

Communications  regarding  the  Academy  should  be  ac 
dressed  to  The  Secretary  of  the  Academy  of  Political 
Science,  Columbia  University. 

THE  POLITICAL  SCIENCE   QUARTERLY 

Managing  Editor 
PARKER  THOMAS  MOON 

The  Quarterly  follows  the  most  important  movements  of  foreign  pol 
itics  but  devotes  chief  attention  to  questions  of  present  interest 
the  United  States.     On  such  questions  its  attitude  is  nonpartisai 
Every  article   is  signed ;  and  every  article,  including  those  of  thi 
editors,  expresses    simply  the    personal  view  of  the  writer.     Eacl 
issue  contains  careful  book  reviews  by  specialists,  and  in  Marcl 
June  and  December  numerous  recent  publications  are  characterize* 
in  brief  book  notes.     In  September  is  printed  a  Supplement,  con] 
sisting  of  a  valuable  record  of  political  events  throughout 
the  world. 

Communications  in  reference  to  articles,  book  reviews  anc 
exchanges  should  be  addressed  to  the  Political  Science  Quar« 
terly,  Columbia  University,  New  York.  Intending  contributor; 
are  requested  to  retain  copies  of  articles  submitted,  as  the  editor* 
disclaim  responsibility  for  the  safety  of  manuscripts.  If  accomj 
panied  by  stamps,  articles  not  found  available  will  be  returned. 

Subscriptions  should  be  forwarded  and  all  business  coi 
munications  addressed  to  The  Academy  of  Political  Science] 
Columbia  University,  New  York. 


Yearly  subscription,  including  Supplement,  five  dollars;  single  number,  noj 
including  Supplement,  one  dollar.  Supplement  consisting  of  Record  of  Political 
Events,  one  dollar.  Back  numbers  and  bound  volumes  can  be  obtained  ^om  Tht 
Academy  of  Political  Science,  Columbia  University,  New  York. 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 
Stockton,  Calif. 

PAT.  JAN  21.  1908 


